Comments

This is just speculation but seeing that I doubt for many reasons that this will end up vaporware or lay to waste for most other systems as the mind control devices I've seen, I can't help but think of future revisions that incorporate these extra features and finally becoming successful since you already have this strapped to your head. Combined with possible success on the Google glasses front technology like this is going to be insane 5 years from now. I don't expect miracles, but with refinements in latency overall, speed, weight, etc.... ohhh my.

I just hope they don't increase the price, $300 for a dev kit is fine... and I'd be willing to shell out up to $300 for such a device when it's ready. But no matter how awesome it is, that cost will still hurt something fierce.

This is just speculation but seeing that I doubt for many reasons that this will end up vaporware or lay to waste for most other systems as the mind control devices I've seen, I can't help but think of future revisions that incorporate these extra features and finally becoming successful since you already have this strapped to your head. Combined with possible success on the Google glasses front technology like this is going to be insane 5 years from now. I don't expect miracles, but with refinements in latency overall, speed, weight, etc.... ohhh my.

I just hope they don't increase the price, $300 for a dev kit is fine... and I'd be willing to shell out up to $300 for such a device when it's ready. But no matter how awesome it is, that cost will still hurt something fierce.

The consumer version is supposed to cost somewhere between $200-300 and have improved resolution (1920x1080 vs 1280x800). Their goal is to have the consumer version ready with a bunch of supported games by year's end or early next year. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a major announcement at CES if they can't make a holiday release this year.

Virtual reality headset's were a novel idea in 1990. Anyone see the "Lawnmower Man". Seriously people, this was the vision of the future over two decades ago. There have been numerous attempts to make it practical for content consumption. There is one arcade machine that had some success porting over PC games to work in VR. It's neat, but after you have had it on your head for ten minutes, you are kinda done with it.

It's an idea that's come and gone. One has never been commercially successful at home because it's unpleasant to wear, it's field of vision trick is kinda neat for a bit, but it messes with the way your eyes work, it's a neat trick, but not something you want to endure for hours at a time. I know John Carmack has praised the Oculus Rift saying that it's lighter, it's refresh rate was good enough not to strain your eyes badly, and I would have been impressed if we were talking about this ten years ago, you know, when PC gamers still cared what John Carmack thought.

I'm always right about consumer electronics. This will fail miserably. It's market dried up in 1995.

Virtual reality headset's were a novel idea in 1990. Anyone see the "Lawnmower Man". Seriously people, this was the vision of the future over two decades ago. There have been numerous attempts to make it practical for content consumption. There is one arcade machine that had some success porting over PC games to work in VR. It's neat, but after you have had it on your head for ten minutes, you are kinda done with it.

It's an idea that's come and gone. One has never been commercially successful at home because it's unpleasant to wear, it's field of vision trick is kinda neat for a bit, but it messes with the way your eyes work, it's a neat trick, but not something you want to endure for hours at a time. I know John Carmack has praised the Oculus Rift saying that it's lighter, it's refresh rate was good enough not to strain your eyes badly, and I would have been impressed if we were talking about this ten years ago, you know, when PC gamers still cared what John Carmack thought.

I'm always right about consumer electronics. This will fail miserably. It's market dried up in 1995.

I have no illusions that this won't likely be on everyone's desks in two years as a required device, but it's a better implementation than anyone has brought out. Ever.

But to directly counter your argument, the reason nearly every 3D gaming implementation has failed is software support. You can have the most amazing hardware ever, but if software support from third parties isn't there, you will fail. This is why I think you're very much wrong about the Rift failing miserably. Current games are being updated with support for the Rift. Upcoming games have support built in. The best part? It doesn't look like the studios may not even need to do anything to add support. The vorpX project claims support for 50 games - that's the number they've actually tested, with a bunch more likely to work. The Vireio project has a number of titles working as well, though they seem to be more of a case-by-case basis.

So let's quantify your claim so it can be proven or disproven: What are your requirements for the Oculus Rift to be classified a miserable failure? Over 10,000 developer kits have been sold - and not all went to developers.

edit: I realize the last paragraph came off as argumentative. My intent was discussion.

To be successful I think it would have to establish an adoption level that changes how people want to game. How do we quantify that? Let's put it this way. I know hundreds of PC gamers in person and online. Of all of them I only know one that endorses playing games in stereoscopic 3D. How long's that been available? About two or so years now? I'd say that makes it a failure in the consumer space, it's neat technology, but it's not changing anything.

That's what I see here. I'm sure it will be a cool piece of tech, but if it does not change how most people want to play, then I'd say it's a failure. If I'd just prefer to sit there looking at my regular ole monitor with my mouse and keyboard, then the Oculus Rift did not do what it set out to accomplish, which is to change how people game.

The Nintendo Wii. That changed how people wanted to play games. It expanded the market for games, that equals success.

The Virtual Boy, that was a failure and the Oculus Rift will be too. People just don't want to strap something to their head so they can play a video game. It's not that it won't be cool, I bet it will be a neat gadget, but when consumers have the choice, they will play the same way they have been for years.

Wii had great sales numbers, agreed. That's about it, though. I still don't want to flail my arms and hands around to play games, and it appears most others don't, either. Wiis collect dust, and WiiU's novelty seems to have worn off.

My point is that the Wii created a novelty that changed gaming. Some may love it, others may hate it, but it's changed how many choose to interact with games. It had mass market appeal. It was accepted by consumers.

The Oculus Rift has uber geek appeal. No denying it, but Joe Blow home PC gamer will not care. It's a $300 novelty gadget. It will not gain mass acceptance.

Yes, the Wii's controllers changed how people interact with one console - two if you include the Wii U. But we're not talking about consoles. We're talking about PC hardware. And yes, in that space there has been little to truly revolutionize the gaming experience since the mouse. But success doesn't require mass acceptance. It only requires the acceptance of the target audience. Take flight controls for example. A great number of flight sim fans simply will not play a flight sim without those controllers. They don't make up a significant percentage of the mass market, and yet the devices appeal to their target audience. They are a success.

Let's keep in mind the Rift's target audience: it ain't Joe Blow home PC gamer. It's definitely targeted at the high-end gamer. Those gamers, and the developers who target those gamers, are the people who funded the Kickstarter. Those gamers are the ones who will buy the finished product. Those gamers are the ones who will make the Rift a success. Right now the Rift is a $300 novelty gadget to non-developers. I won't deny that. But when the final product comes out, I believe it'll do quite well... especially as more people experience it.

Your use of the Virtual Boy's failure to predict the Rift's failure is akin to using the Hindenburg to predict the future of space exploration. The Virtual Boy was a self-contained console that failed because it was an uncomfortable piece of equipment that sat on a table forcing its users into awkward positions to play. The Rift is a display device that sits comfortably on the users head and allows the user full interactive freedom.

Let me word my argument in the most delicate way I know how. I believe the target market is high end PC gamers who have given up on ever getting laid. Seriously, who is going to sit around wearing this thing? I know nerd acceptance has come a long way, but man.... This is not happening.

My point is that the Wii Rift created a novelty that changed gaming. Some may love it, others may hate it, but it's changed how many choose to interact with games.

Exactly.

I'm not saying it's going to kick ass, and I don't necessarily disagree with anything your saying - save for the bravado quips about sex - but few felt the Wii would change much when it was first released.

The large, glaring difference between the two is who the target market is.

I did not intend to offend anyone. Being serious for a second. The "cool" factor is going to be part of the consumer equation. The bottom line is most people have some semblance of vanity. This device is not good for your vanity. I understand what you all are trying to say about a niche market. I'm telling you there are very few people that will pay for this experience. I'm not saying it's not a cool little piece of technology. I'm just telling you it will fail commercially because it just doesn't understand people. People are vain, very few go out of their way to look that awkward.

I seriously doubt anyone using these will care about what they look like from the perspective of others, as long as they're enjoying the personal experience they're getting. It's not even something you use with others around, so who'd see you that matters?

Any argument about the gadget's sex appeal is bogus. It's a device you use by yourself when enjoying virtual porn reality games.

I seriously doubt anyone using these will care about what they look like from the perspective of others, as long as they're enjoying the personal experience they're getting. It's not even something you use with others around, so who'd see you that matters?

Any argument about the gadget's sex appeal is bogus. It's a device you use by yourself when enjoying virtual porn reality games.

Let me preface this, I sent a PM to Nick the other day to apologize, if I did offend anyone with my "hope of getting laid" comment, I sincerely apologize. I was just playing, and looking to keep the conversation going because I do enjoy a little conflict from time to time.

That said, being 100% serious now.

People are vain. Look at Apple, the richest gadget company in the world. We would all agree Apple has done a better job marketing gadgets than any other company in recent memory, would we not? I have quantitative evidence to support that if we need it? Is Apple's technology exceptional compared to their rivals? Not really, it's marketing, it's playing to people's vanity, their need to belong, to fit in, be part of the club, the club that says I'm hip, I'm in..... You will no doubt say I'm trying to compare and apple to an orange, that this market does not compete with that market. My friend, all entertainment markets are simultaneously competing with one another for share. The share is your investment, your time. You can listen to music, watch a movie, browse a website, play a video game, you get the point, it's all competing. Any entertainment gadget that comes out is competing. Nick's prior argument segmenting consoles from PC peripherals, I respectfully reject it. It's not a sound case, of course PC peripherals have to compete with consoles, cell phones, laptops, TV, and everything else that distracts you, entertains you, it's all competitive.

People are already stretched too thin. Distracted in countless ways. Does the Oculus Rift solve a problem for consumers, or does it create a new one? Should I pay to become a little more detached from the real world, from interaction with my spouse, my kid? You ask, who will see you wear it? I guess if that does not matter to a particular segment, maybe they are already detached enough from the real world that this is the next logical step for them? I know in my household, me wearing a device to get a little more detached from my reality, it would not go over that well. Some consumers will take that into account, who will see me, who will notice. I'm not even that vain, and it's crossed my mind. I'm not going to wear that thing save for five minutes just to kinda see what it's all about. I'm definitely not spending $300 to become more detached from the real world.

I have to ask myself, do I honestly want to bury myself into the game more? Is it good for me? Do I want that in my life? Will it make me feel cooler, hipper, better about myself to be able to do that? I'm asking myself that, and I'm sure allot of other people will as well. (and to @Thrax point, that's if they even get to experience a Rift demo to begin with)

People do buy gadgets to bolster their self image, to feel better about themselves, to feel like they fit in, belong. Maybe "sex appeal" isn't the best description, but if I've ever seen a gadget that lack's it, it's the Oculus Rift.